pecunium | What they said

What they said

It ain't none of it new to any of you. I've said it before, long, loud and at tedious length.

And I've been mocked, insulted, ridiculed berated, praised, lauded, pointed to [good and ill], linked, and, mostly, ignored.

In today's WaPo a pair of guys with more pull than I have are arguing some of my points.

War Crimes and the White House

An excerpt.

This is not just about avoiding "torture." The article expressly prohibits "at any time and in any place whatsoever" any acts of "violence to life and person" or "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment."

Last Friday, the White House issued an executive order attempting to "interpret" Common Article 3 with respect to a controversial CIA interrogation program. The order declares that the CIA program "fully complies with the obligations of the United States under Common Article 3," provided that its interrogation techniques do not violate existing federal statutes (prohibiting such things as torture, mutilation or maiming) and do not constitute "willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual in a manner so serious that any reasonable person, considering the circumstances, would deem the acts to be beyond the bounds of human decency."

In other words, as long as the intent of the abuse is to gather intelligence or to prevent future attacks, and the abuse is not "done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual" -- even if that is an inevitable consequence -- the president has given the CIA carte blanche to engage in "willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse."

And it's wrong.

There are moral arguments as to why it's wrong. There are utilitarian arguments as to why it's wrong. Either ought to trump the, specious, claims that it can save lives.

Why? Because as I keep saying, using torture as a means of collecting information doesn't work. As a system, it fails. Someone might tell the truth, but the amount of non-truth which enters the system buries it.

There are those who pretend that's not the case. That somehow we can sift the truth from the lies; without having any troubles. That somehow the dedicated bad person, who is willing to plant bombs, bury people alive, whatever fantasy of justification the torture mongers want to trot out, will somehow break when his body is beaten, his flesh is torn, his mind is assaulted with terrors, the electrodes are supplied with current, the water rises past his nose and mouth, his bones broken, his sleep deprived, his environment changed, etc., etc., etc., ad naseum.

They are wrong. The dedicated will hold out until the bomb goes off. The ignorant, when tormented with those things, will lie; just to make it stop.

If the dedicated break, the things they say will go into the pile with all the lies. Worse, the lies will be made to conform to a narrative established by the interrogators, because they will look for confirmation of previous stories (can we say, "Satanic Rituals" and "McMartin Preschool"? I knew we could).

When cops, without the aid of torture can get so much in the way of confessions to things which didn't happen, what will prevent more, vigorous means from getting bad data?

Nothing.

To go back to the column.

To date in the war on terrorism, including the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks and all U.S. military personnel killed in action in Afghanistan and Iraq, America's losses total about 2 percent of the forces we lost in World War II and less than 7 percent of those killed in Vietnam. Yet we did not find it necessary to compromise our honor or abandon our commitment to the rule of law to defeat Nazi Germany or imperial Japan, or to resist communist aggression in Indochina. On the contrary, in Vietnam -- where we both proudly served twice -- America voluntarily extended the protections of the full Geneva Convention on prisoners of war to Viet Cong guerrillas who, like al-Qaeda, did not even arguably qualify for such protections.

The Geneva Conventions provide important protections to our own military forces when we send them into harm's way. Our troops deserve those protections, and we betray their interests when we gratuitously "interpret" key provisions of the conventions in a manner likely to undermine their effectiveness. Policymakers should also keep in mind that violations of Common Article 3 are "war crimes" for which everyone involved -- potentially up to and including the president of the United States -- may be tried in any of the other 193 countries that are parties to the conventions.

Following orders isn't a defense. It's not even a decent justification.

When the means are something that doesn't work, the ends, no matter how good they look on paper, can't be justified, no matter how clever the sophistries.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The Geneva Conventions provide important protections to our own military forces when we send them into harm's way.

That's the part I don't get about the "interpretations." It doesn't really matter what's justifiable, or legal... the point of the Geneva conventions wasn't "what's a standard of treatment we can all agree is right," but "what standard do we wish to insist on for our own personnel, and are willing to extend in return?"

Whether adherence to the Geneva conventions is important won't be decided on a senate floor nor in a courtroom; it'll be played out in the field.

Whether it is logistically useful or legal to allow torture (by whatever buzzword they're using this week) can be decided in courts. But whether it's sensible, whether it's a good part of a military plan, is an ugly test to inflict on our own soldiers.

And dammit, we did that test. We--194 nations, you said?--decided it was Not A Good Idea. But the idjits who are making decisions for our military seem to have forgotten that.

I really hate that argument.

Why?

Because the people who want to torture will trot out the counter-argument that the other side doesn't abide by them, so why should we? They will say, if the other guy agrees to abide by it, then we'll treat them as we want to be be treated, but since they don't treat us that way, they don't want to be treated that way.

It's fatuous, but seductive. It's the problem of the positive formulation in "The Golden Rule of Jesus". I prefer the phrasing of Hillell, "Do not do to others, what you do not wish done to you."

We don't adhere to a moral code because it's convenient; we adhere to one because it's right.

To quote Kennedy, "We do not choose [this} because it is easy, we choose it because it is hard."

If we are going to claim to be better, we have to be better.

East Germany called itself, "The German Democratic Republic". Doesn't mean they were, just that it's what they called themselves.

TK

Or as my late mother (who had a ... colorful ... way with the language) would have said:

"You can call a dog turd German sausage, but that doesn't mean you'll enjoy it with your breakfast."

I'm mostly in agreement with Hillel.

We agree not to do these things to others because we don't want them done to us. And we don't want them done to us because we think they're wrong.

But it's hard to convince people that "those commie mutant traitor scum" or "despotic overlords" or "drug-pushing godless heathens" or whatever the current hatephrase is, are deserving of human rights and dignities. Especially if the CMTS have been blowing up schools and so on. I don't think anyone ever got elected with a platform of "Rapists Have Rights Too" or "Be Nice To Bombers"

But it's easy to point out that "fair standards" need to apply to everyone, not just "the good guys"--because everyone is the good guys in their own minds.

the other side doesn't abide by them, so why should we?

And my immediate response to THAT argument is, "If all your friends were jumping off a cliff, would you do it too?"

Because that's exactly what it is -- the kind of justification used by a 6-year-old on the playground. We're supposed to be the grownups here; we can bloody well ACT like it.

This pretty much confirms my opinion that, at the core, the Neo-Con movement is a bunch of jumped up frat boys acting as if they were in charge, really having no clue what they're doing, but expecting that the world will conform to what they want just because they're in power.

Comparisons to "the divine right of kings" are rather apt. They know best because they are in charge, and they are in charge because they know best. They will *always* consider the opinion they hold on torture right, and yours wrong, because they can't ever be wrong. If they were, they wouldn't be in charge.

As for the people who "just followed orders" and engaged in torture, I feel sorry for them, but there absolutely has to be a reckoning, and justice has to be done. If a cop beats a confession out of a suspect, there are consequences even if that suspect was guilty. The same goes for soldiers.

Greater responsibility is with the ones who gave the orders, though.

When the means are something that doesn't work, the ends, no matter how good they look on paper, can't be justified, no matter how clever the sophistries.

one thing people tend to forget when they opine that the end justifies the means is that there is no end per se -

I just wanted to say that I've been reading your blog for the past week or so. Doing so has helped me to see past my own jaded views that no one seems to care as we go on a terrible path.

If not for a rather rough day, this would be more verbose, but it's what I have. Thank you for the help, regardless that you didn't know you were supplying it.

Why? Because as I keep saying, using torture as a means of collecting information doesn't work.

I'll insert my usual points:

1) There are news reports that cite experts who think it does work. This includes CIA experts interviewed by Brian Ross – experts who don't like torture.

2) Your definition of torture – "Any physical or mental coercion. Any" – is silly. It includes everything down to a parent putting his child on a "time-out" and a police officer pulling over a car for a violation.

3) (Based on a recent response of yours) Your contention is not only unproven, it is not provable. I base this conclusion on the fact that you objected to any suggestion that you ought to prove it as "arguing in bad faith". Thus, your statement is not a fact, but a doctrinal statement.

Now, perhaps you can cite references in the literature to support your statement. Maybe you can even cite your experience interrogating people in Iraq. It seems to me, reasonable people can discuss any facts you care to offer. Unfortunately, as you've stated before, this issue is a hobby-horse of yours, and I'm not convinced you're prepared to discuss actual facts or data. You seem to prefer calling any who disagree with you either stupid or evil.

Karl... I'm going to repeat myself.

Those experts are wrong. They are either stupid, or evil.

Your definitions of torture are that it's acceptable.

You are either stupid, or evil.

Sometimes, insults are true.

TK

A while back, I mentioned that as a rule, those on the right believe those on the left are mistaken; those on the left believe those on the right are evil.

Lee Gold didn't believe that was a valid rule, and wanted some examples cited.

Thank you for a most splendid one.

Obviously, we're working with different data. I see considerably more people on the Right viewing their opponents as being evil -- mostly because "evil" is basically a religious concept, and religious fundamentalists (Christian and Islamic, at least) tend to find right-wing authoritarianism appealing. Other than that, I haven't noticed that the use of hyperbole in discussions is particularly skewed towards either segment of the political spectrum.

(Though approximately agnostic in orientation, I do seem to think that certain actions and policies are evil, in the sense of being harmful to people and society, and (despite trying to avoid doing it myself) don't have a whole lot of trouble with extending "evil" to describe the people who practice or advocate such actions.)

And Karl makes a false conflation. I said (from looking at his statements here, and on his blogs; over time, about both this topic; and me that) he, specifically, and the people he was citing, specifically, were either stupid, or evil.

I think, as a rule, that those who support torture are supportig an evil thing.

Those who say that to not support torture is a moral wrong, well the word for that sort of thing is evil.

I thought it so when Dershowitz argued for it, just as much as I do when Karl does.

It's not the side of the aisle, it's the things they do.

And so his, "discovery" is as patently false as the special pleadings for evolution's being "disproved" because there is debate in the halls of biology over the mechanisms.

TK

It may be different data, but I suspect it may be different definitions. Generally, those who are more traditional in their religious outlook will use the word "evil", but other people use other words to refer to the same idea – people deliberately causing harm.

On the left, for example, you'll find a number of labels in use. For example, there is no such thing as a principled opponent of affirmative action – anyone who opposes this lofty notion is racist, sexist, homophobic, or bigoted. He has deliberately chosen a position with the intent of oppressing the unfortunate. (Terry happens to be a person on the left who does use the "E-word", which makes this example such a fine one.)

Likewise, in Terry's case, there can be no principled exploration of the issue of whether torture works. Raising the possibility is grounds for moral condemnation.

There is a third option - which can overlap with the other two (one can also be stupid and evil).

karl lembke may be - like so many others who advocate "any means necessary" to prevent terrorist acts - a coward.

It may be that he's willing to go to any lengths, see any injustice done, allow any sort of atrocity to be committed, simply so that he (and presumably, to be gracious his country) will not have to suffer any sort of violence, injustice, or atrocity itself.

So instead he trades freedom, the lives, dignity, mental well-being, and health of those he has never met (both the soldiers and interrogators, and their targets/victims - innocent and guilty), his nation's good name, good fortune, and good standing in the world community, for a ghost. A farce.

Because the reality is that, eventually, another attack will get through. There is no perfect defense. There is no magic force field that will keep the "bad guys" away. And no matter how hard the FBI, NSA, etc. try - no matter what powers they are given, eventually they will zig while the other guy zags, and someone is going to put up us the bomb.

So all those poor fucks we've tortured - in the end, useless. All those people we've imprisoned, or killed, wrongfully? A waste. All the political - and economic - capital we've spent on Transport Safety Administrations that confiscate people's toothpaste, and Homeland Security Administrations that supply armored personnel carriers to towns like Cortez, Colorado? Spent on fripperies and useless junk - or useful junk sent to the wrong places.

All because of cowards.

I suppose, Karl, that news reports citing "experts" can be found to back any assertion whatsoever. (One might try Googling on "Pagans Devil-worship" or "Jews neo-Nazi".) Perhaps, as you suggest, the futility of torture cannot be proven, but the vast body of expert opinion does appear to support Terry's assertion (in the longer form of the argument he presented -- that the results are not sufficiently dependable to support the use of torture).

True, one can find "experts" who will say anything you want to hear. That's why experts have to go through a qualification process before their opinions can be taken seriously. Terry claims qualifications as an interrogator. The experts Brian Ross interviewed also claim qualifications, due to their position with the CIA. Short of examining paperwork and querying references, it's hard to determine which to believe.

At some point, we may wind up looking at stated or implied agendas. Terry has voiced strong opposition to torture, and has stated that "torture doesn't work". I'm interpreting this as meaning "there exist no cases where torture has worked".

At least one of Ross' experts also opposes torture, but concedes that "aggressive methods" have obtained usable information. If he considers these aggressive methods to be torture, then this would seem to be an admission against interest, and I'd be inclined to give this opinion a little more weight.

Now, the problem is, based on what I've read, Terry has a very good point, and I'm inclined to believe he's mostly right.

Unfortunately, he has taken positions that tend to destroy his credibility. For example, he refuses to address the cases where torture has, apparently, worked in anything approaching a calm manner. This gives him the appearance of a fanatic who reacts to opposition with a fit of hysteria.

In contrast, here's another person who claims some expertise in interrogation, interviewed (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=b0d450ff-7a6d-41ca-b855-a93127f6eed7) on the Hugh Hewitt program:

HH: Now an e-mail. Mr. Hewitt, can you ask the Colonel if we would authorize torture regarding someone who knows of a nuke about to go off in minutes or hours.

SH: Yeah, that’s the so-called ticking time bomb scenario. The difficulty with that is that that question poses a hypothetical which in my experience, I never ran into a hypothetical like that. If you pose the rectitude, or lack thereof, of torture based upon that hypothetical, you’re not really dealing in the real world. That’s my answer to that.

For the most part, what Terry has said about this scenario. But later on, he continues:

SH: Yeah, well I think the answer to that is that you know, the type of information you’re trying to get is obviously situation dependent, and sometimes the situation is more critical than others, but there’s got to be, and that’s what’s going on now, a healthy deliberation, and a laying down of here are the procedures…and this has been done already, here are the procedures that are authorized, here are some more aggressive procedures that are not authorized without the approval of so and so, and here are procedures that you will never do, and so that everyone knows basically what the ground rules are, so there’s no room for hot doggery, you know?

There are various levels of aggressiveness that are used, depending on the situation, but there are levels of aggressiveness beyond which we just don't go.

He also tends to argue points that are not the one being considered. He attempts to rebut the notion that torture might, on occasion, work, by citing examples where his preferred methods work.

This is highly flawed logic. It's like arguing that socket wrenches work very well for tightening and loosening bolts, and therefore channel-lock pliers don't work.

For the moment, I'm not arguing whether one tool works better than any other, or whether Terry's preferred tool works in all possible cases. I'm just asking for a serious, professional response to apparent evidence that some other tools work too.

Perhaps he's uncomfortable with a purely moral/ethical argument, and feels he has to buttress it with a black-and-white utilitarian argument, even if it means an uphill battle against thousands of years of practice and occasional cases where, in spite of what we may wish, it does work.

Today, I had the time to go and read the article linked in Terry's post. I was kind of curious to know just exactly "what they said".

What P.X. Kelley and Robert F. Turner, the authors of the op-ed, wrote was accurately quoted in Terry's post, but I don't think it accurately represented the letter or intent of the Executive Order (helpfully linked from the op-ed.)

They described the order as saying:

Somehow, I come to a different reading than Kelly and Turner do. The way I read the order, it declares that any "confinement and interrogation program" (CAIP) must not include a number of practices, including torture; mutilation; acts of violence comparable to murder or torture; any other acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment prohibited by various laws; willful acts done for the purpose of humiliating an individual; or denigration of an individual's religion, religious practices, or religious objects.

I also note that the Order bans "willful acts done for the purpose of humiliating an individual", and not "for the express or sole purpose". I would interpret this as meaning that you're only in the clear if you can show there was no intent to cause humiliation. (Otherwise, the Order would ban cavity searches and medical exams, too.)

I'm not sure what "experts" might say, but based on a fairly careful reading, I'm inclined to believe at least some people have skimmed through the Executive Order, reading just enough to interpret in an outrageous manner, and then thrown a fit onto a printed page.

What their precise motives are remain, I fear, outside my particular area of expertise.

Yup, "intent" and "motives" are often unclear and difficult or impossible to establish. We do know (IIRC) that the Current Administration has interestingly re-defined "torture" in such a way as to permit actions that we have (successfully, I think) prosecuted as "War Crimes" when other people did them. We are, after all, dealing here with a President who appears to hold that, in matters of National Security & The War on Terror, he and subordinates acting at his direction are not bound by any Laws. He certainly can, at any time, secretly issue exemptions to this Executive Order, so I see it as being, at best, largely cosmetic political propaganda.

Yes, "for the purpose of humiliating" appears to be sufficiently ambiguous as to be a scot-free thing -- under U.S. Law the prosecutor would have to prove (or convince a jury/judge) purpose or intent, which, I understand, tends to be extremely difficult. As it stands, "we thought she might have a weapon concealed in her rectum, so we had to reach in and feel around to make sure she didn't" would probably be an adequate defense, at least for a Court Martial. Any humiliation would be merely incidental, as a kind of "collateral damage". As you're aware, I'm sure, different people have different concepts of "an acceptable level of collateral damage" in various circumstances. As it happens, I (&, presumably, quite a lot of other people) consider the loopholes the Current Administration has created to be unacceptable. I do not, and do not ever expect to, tolerate the idea that my country will officially accept a policy of treatment of helpless captives that permits the infliction of excruciating pain (as long as it doesn't "result in permanent organic damage") and treatment that renders the prisoners insane. And the guidelines/Orders President Bush has placed in operation _do_ permit such things.

I haven't read the entire Kelly & Turner article, and perhaps won't get around to it, but.... Yes, as you suggest, their precise motivations would be difficult to determine. I think it's reasonable, however, to assume that one of their strong motivations is to remind everyone that the people who've been controlling the Republican Party for the past decade (or maybe two decades) have established a really remarkable Track Record for saying, passing laws, as doing things that are different from, and often opposite to, their purported intent. That's something all Americans need to know more about, and to be reminded of, frequently. We are not dealing, here, with principled people who respect and follow the Spirit of the Laws and the Constitution.

I deeply appreciate your speaking out on this.

Your experience and knowledge make it more weighty when you speak, and I am glad that you do.

I am curious about something - I've seen just a tiny little bit of what "following orders" can do when people don't have a rock solid internal moral compass of their own to follow. I saw a little tiny bit of it, while in a civillian situation, where all the people involved were living in their country they live in (not deployed Someplace Else.) and were living with all the comforts and pleasures of living At Home. Far fewer stresses, far fewer possible explanations for the slipping, and work done on a slow enough time scale that there is no way on earth one could use the argument that we have to get this done fast because there is a clock ticking somewhere.

And still, they roll over for what they perceive to be what Authority wants. They roll over and they do what they think Authority wants. They don't stop and say, wait. This is wrong. This is wrong and we can't do this. They roll over for a paycheck, for not causing a fuss, for keeping their jobs, and for the following of orders. And they do things.

I'm honestly terrified of what people like that might do if they were the police, or the millitary. They lack a compass and the ability to follow it. It's sad and it's also frightening.

Here's the question though - what do we do to help people build and regain their moral courage? I'm a the Big Sister/Auntie to several children now, and I'd like to see the children I am at least partly responsible for develop moral courage so they -won't- be those people. How do you train this into a person? And what do you do with someone who's already an adult and lacks it?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

What they said

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Thank you!

Re: Thank you!

Re: Thank you!

Re: Thank you!

no subject

no subject

"Experts"

no subject

no subject

no subject